Precisely because we have learned that in some countries, in the hymn called
the Trisagion, by way of addition after the words “Holy and Immortal” there are
inserted the words, “who was crucified for our sake, have mercy upon us,” but
this addition was elided from that hymn by the Holy Fathers of old on the ground
that it is alien to piety, considering that such an utterance must be due to
some innovating and disloyal heretic, we too, hereby confirming and ratifying
the decisions piously made in the way of legislation by our Holy Fathers
heretofore, do anathematize those who still persist after this definition in
allowing this utterance to be voiced in church, or to be joined to the Trisagion
hymn in any other manner. Accordingly, if the transgressor of the rules laid
down here be a member of the Clergy, we command that he be shorn of his
sacerdotal standing; but if he be a layman, that he be excommunicated.

Interpretation.

Peter Fullo (i.e., “the Fuller”) and the Theopaschites following him were the
first to add to the Trisagion Hymn the words “who was crucified for our sake,”
after the words “Holy and Immortal.” These heretics, therefore, together with
such addition, were condemned by the Council which was held in Rome A.D. 487
under Pope Felix before the Fifth Ecum. Council, and Peter Fullo indeed was
anathematized by it (see the Preface to the Fifth Ecum. C.O. But inasmuch as
there are still some successors to the heresy of Fullo to be found reciting the
Trisagion hymn together with this blasphemous addition, the present Council
anathematizes those who accept it and who either in church and publicly or in
private join this addition to the Trisagion. Accordingly, if they happen to be
clerics, it deposes them from office; but if they happen to be laymen, it
excommunicates them.

Canon LXXXII.

In some of the paintings of the venerable icons, a lamb is inscribed as being
shown or pointed at by the Precursor’s finger, which was taken to be a type of
grace, suggesting beforehand through the law the true lamb to us, Christ our
God. Therefore, eagerly embracing the old types and the shadows as symbols of
the truth and preindications handed down to the Church, we prefer the grace, and
accept it as the truth in fulfillment of the Law. Since, therefore, that which
is perfect even though it be but painted is imprinted in the faces of all, the
Lamb who taketh away the sin of the world Christ our God, with respect to His
human character, we decree that henceforth He shall be inscribed even in the
icons instead of the ancient lamb: through Him being enabled to comprehend the
reason for the humiliation of the God Logos, and in memory of His life in the
flesh and of His passion and of His soterial death being led by the hand, as it
were, and of the redemption of the world which thence accrues.

Interpretation.

Since some painters paint Christ as a sheep and lamb, with the Forerunner
pointing his finger at him and saying, “Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away
the sin of the world,” therefore and on this account the present Canon commands
that hereafter in the future this shall not be done, but instead Christ Himself
shall be painted a full-grown man, with respect to His human character, in order
that by means of the human aspect we may be enabled to recall to memory His life
in the flesh and His passion and His death, and the salvation of the world
resulting therefrom. For, as regarding those old types of the Law, we honor and
value them, out of consideration for the fact that they prefigured the truth of
the Gospel and of grace, among which one was that of the lamb slaughtered on the
occasion of the Passover (or Easter), taken in the image of Christ, the true
Lamb which taketh away the sin of the world. But now that this truth and the
realities themselves have come, we prefer it and accept it rather than the
types.

Canon LXXXIII.

Let no one impart of the Eucharist to the bodies of the dying. For it is
written, “Take, eat” (Matt. 26:26); but the bodies of dead persons can
neither take nor eat anything.

Interpretation.

This Canon is nearly the same as the twenty-fifth of Carthage. For since it
used to be, according to Zonaras, an old custom to impart the Eucharist, or,
more explicitly speaking, the divine Mysteries, to the bodies of dying persons,
this Canon prohibits this as does also that Canon, explaining that when the Lord
gave the mystic bread to His disciples, and through them consequently to all the
faithful, He said, “Take, eat.” But the bodies of the dead can neither take it
nor eat it. But neither ought one to baptize the dead, according to the
remainder of the same c. XXV of Carthage. St. Chrysostom, in his homily on the
Epistle to the Hebrews, excommunicates from the Church for a long time as an
idolater any Christian that pays and hires women called moerologetriae
(corresponding to what the Irish call keeners, i.e., professional
mourners) to lament and mourn his dead relatives, and when admonished not to do
so will not listen. On top of this, he also excommunicates even the
moerologetriae themselves if they dare to go to wail.

Canon LXXXIV.

Closely following the Fathers’ institutions, we decree also as concerning
infants, whenever there can be found no reliable witnesses who can state beyond
a doubt that they have been duly baptized, and neither are they themselves owing
to their infancy able to give any information at all in reply to questions
respecting the mystagogical rite administered to them, they must be baptized
without putting any obstacle in the way, lest any such hesitation may deprive
them of such purifying sanctification.

Interpretation.

This Canon too is likewise word for word c. LXXX of Carthage, decreeing that
whenever no witnesses can be found to testify that infants have been baptized
(perhaps because they were captured by barbarians and abducted to distant
regions, and were thereafter redeemed from captivity by Christians), nor can
they themselves give any information that they have been baptized, owing to
infancy, or, more explicitly speaking, owing to the infantile age at which they
were baptized. Such infants, I say, ought to be baptized without any hindrance,
lest any doubt as to whether they have been baptized or not result in depriving
them of the purification effected through and by virtue of the bath. And see the
Footnote to Ap. c. XLVII.

Canon LXXXV.

(Deut. 17:6 and 19:15; cf. Matt. 18:16), we are taught by Scripture. In the
case therefore of those slaves who are being freed by their masters, we
prescribe that they shall enjoy this honor pursuant to the testimony of three
witnesses. Those having present knowledge shall offer verification to the
freedom which they are bestowing of their own accord.

Interpretation.

Since according to the civil laws the freedom of slaves was a thing which had
no honor attached to it, therefore and on this account whenever any testimony
was being offered concerning it, five or even more witnesses had to be
presented, in order to insure the proof of it. In annulling this, the present
Canon decrees that only three witnesses are sufficient to verify the liberation
of such a slave: since the Holy Writ says that every word must be established,
or, more explicitly speaking, must be verified by the mouth of two or three
witnesses. See also Ap. c. LXXXII.

Canon LXXXVI.

As for those who procure and train prostitutes and harlots to the detriment
of souls, if they should be Clerics, we decree that they be excommunicated and
deposed from office; but if they be laymen, that they be excommunicated.

Interpretation.

Even the civil laws forbid and punish the practices of whoremongers, or at
any rate, the collection and nurture of whores, harlots, and prostitutes (the
Greek language making no distinction between these species of the same genus) to
the injury of souls with a view to gaining reward from their prostitution; and
much more do the ecclesiastical laws do so. On this account the present Canon
excommunicates and at the same time also deposes from office those Clerics who
do this (which penalty is a very severe one and double chastisement, since for
the most part deposition alone suffices to punish Clerics), while, on the other
hand, it excommunicates laymen.

Canon LXXXVII.

A woman who has abandoned her husband is an adulteress if she has betaken
herself to another man, according to sacred and divine Basil, who most
excellently and aptly extracted this item of knowledge from the prophecy of
Jeremiah, which says that “if a wife transfers herself to another man, she
shall not return to her husband, but by polluting herself she shall remain
polluted” (Jer. 3:1); and again, “Whosoever hath an adulteress (as his
wife), is foolish and impious” (Prov. 18:22). If, therefore, a woman appears
to have departed from her husband without a good reason, the man deserves to be
pardoned, while the woman deserves a penance. The pardon shall be given to him
so that he may have communion with the Church. Any husband, however, who
abandons his lawful wife, and takes another, according to the Lord’s decision,
is subject to the judgment attached to adultery. It has been canonically decreed
by our Fathers that such men shall serve a year as weepers, two years as
listeners, three years as kneelers, and during the seventh year shall stand
together with the faithful, and thus be deemed worthy to partake of the
prosphora if indeed they verily repent with tears.

Interpretation.

The present Canon is composed of three Canons of St. Basil the Great. Thus,
the commencement of this Canon is gleaned from c. IX of Basil. It says in effect
that any wife who leaves her husband and takes another is an adulteress, just as
divine Basil wisely concluded both from the prophecy of Jeremiah which says in
effect that if a wife takes another man, she can no longer return to her first
husband (without his wanting her, that is to say, according to Zonaras), since
she has become polluted: and from the Proverbs of Solomon, who says that any man
is impious and wanting in sense who keeps his wife in his house after she has
been adulterously employed by another man. The rest of this Canon is gleaned
from c. XXXV of St. Basil. It says: If, therefore, it should appear that a wife
has departed from her husband without a good reason and cause (which means
without the reason based on fornication; so that from this it is easy to
understand by contradistinction that a wife may with good reason leave her
husband: but no other occasion is a good reason except the reason of fornication
or adultery), the husband deserves to be pardoned on the ground that he has
afforded no just cause for this unreasonable departure of his wife, and he can
take another wife. But the wife, on the contrary, deserves the penances attached
to the commission of adultery, on the ground that she has become the cause of
this departure. The pardon which the husband shall receive because thereof is
that he may stand along with the faithful in the church and not be
excommunicated, though he is not entitled to partake of the divine Mysteries.
The rest of this Canon is word for word c. LXXVII of St. Basil the Great. It
says: He, however, who (except on grounds of fornication) leaves his lawful wife
and takes another is subject to the penance attached to adultery, in accordance
with the Lord’s decision, which says: “Whosoever shall put away his wife, save
on account of fornication, is causing her to commit adultery.” By concession,
however, if he repent with tears, such a man and his likes are canonized by the
Fathers (assembled, that is to say, in Ancyra, in their c. XX; and by St. Basil
the Great, in his c. LXXVII) to abstain from Communion for seven years, passing
two of them with the weepers, two with the listeners, three with the kneelers,
and during seventh year standing together with the co-standers, or consistentes,
and thus acquiring the right to commune. Read also the Interpretation and
Footnote of Ap. c. XLVIII, and c. XX of Ancyra.

Canon LXXXVIII.

The present Canon prohibits anyone from introducing into any sacred temple
any kind of animal. For sacred things deserve honor and respectful reverence,
save only if anyone be engaged in a long journey, and there arise a great need
due to wintry weather and a heavy rain, and he has no place to take refuge, he
takes his beast into the temple in order to avoid leaving it outside to perish
and himself exposed to the danger of death, as not being able to make the
journey from here on with his own feet alone, or as being grieved because he has
no money wherewith to buy another. The Canon adduces testimony from Scripture,
which says that the Sabbath was made for man. This can be taken in two different
senses: either that just as the Sabbath was declared a holiday by the law in
order to allow the slave a day of rest, and likewise the beast of burden in the
service of man, so that it might as a result of such rest be able to serve its
master the better, so and in virtually the same way it maybe said that the
animal is allowed to rest in the Temple on such an occasion not for the sake of
the animal itself, but for the sake of the man who owns the animal. Or that just
as the holiday of the Sabbath used to be interrupted in order to enable men to
water their animals (Luke ch. 13), or to get them out of a pit if they happened
to fall into one on a Sabbath, in order that as a result of all such exceptions
man might be served. Thus too is the honor of the Temple temporarily shelved in
order to provide for the salvation of the man owning the beast. But if anyone
should take any animal into a temple without any such necessity, in case he be a
clergyman, let him be deposed; but if he be a layman, let him be excommunicated.
Read also c. LXXIV of this same 6th.

Canon LXXXIX.

The faithful celebrating the days of the soterial Passion with fasting and
prayer and contrition must cease their fast about the middle hours of the night
after Great Saturday, the divine Evangelists Matthew and Luke having signaled us
the lateness of night, the one by adding the words “at the end of the
sabbath” (Matt. 28:1) and the other by saying “very early in the
morning” (Luke 24:1).

(c. I of Dionysius.)

Interpretation.

This Canon decrees that Christians must celebrate all the Great Week of the
Holy Passion with fasting and prayer and contrition of the heart — real
contrition, that is to say, and not hypocritical (exceptionally, however, and
especially on Great Friday and Great Saturday they ought to be forced to spend
the entire day without any nourishment at all); but about midnight — that is to
say, after the midnight of the past Great Saturday — of the coming Great Sunday
they must cease fasting, since the Lord has already risen, as is plainly
evidenced by the divine Evangelists. For St. Matthew by saying that the women
came at the end of the Sabbath to inspect the sepulcher revealed that the day of
the Sabbath had past as well as a large part of the night after the Sabbath;
while Luke, on the other hand, by saying that they came “very early in the
morning” revealed that there still remained a large part of the night until
Sunday dawned. Hence, from the statements of both of them it may be inferred
that the Lord rose about midnight, the sixth hour having passed and the seventh
having begun.

Canon XC.

We have received it canonically from our God-bearing Fathers not to bend the
knee on Sundays when honoring the Resurrection of Christ, since this observation
may not be clear to some of us, we are making it plain to the faithful, so that
after the entrance of those in holy orders into the sacrificial altar on the
evening of the Saturday in question, let none of them bend a knee until the
evening of the following Sunday, when, after the entrance during the Lychnic,
again bending knees, we thus begin offering our prayers to the Lord. For
inasmuch as we hare received it that the night succeeding Saturday was the
precursor of our Savior’s rising, we commence our hymns at this point
spiritually, ending the festival by passing out of darkness into light, in order
that we may hence celebrate en masse the Resurrection for a whole day and a
whole night.

Interpretation.

Since we have received it traditionally (as the present Canon decrees) not to
bend the knee on Sundays, from the God-bearing Fathers of the First Synod, i.e.,
St. Peter and St. Basil the Great, for the resurrection of the Lord, we bring it
to the notice of the faithful that they are to refrain from genuflection after
the entrance which the priests make into the Holy Bema during Saturday vespers;
this is the same as saying from the one evening to the next. For taking the
night after Saturday to be the precursor and preamble of the Lord’s
resurrection, we begin chanting the resurrection hymns called the Anastasimi,
and from the darkness of the night after Saturday (which is counted as that of
Sunday) we commence the festival, and keep it up until the light of day of
Sunday, when we end it, in order that in this manner we may celebrate the
Resurrection en masse for a whole night and day. See also c. XX of the
1st.

Canon XCI.

As for women who furnish drugs for the purpose of procuring abortion, and
those who take foetus-killing poisons, they are made subject to the penalty
prescribed for murderers.

Interpretation.

Some women, who happen to conceive as a result of secretly practicing coition
with men, in order to escape detection swallow certain poisonous draughts or
herbs by means of which they kill the foetus in their womb and thus expel it
dead. For this reason the present Canon condemns to the penalty of murderers all
women (or men) who furnish such means, as well as the women who take these and
swallow them.

Canon XCII.

As for those who grab women on the pretext of marriage, or who aid and abet
those who grab them, the holy Council has decreed that if they be clergymen,
they shall forfeit their own rank, but if they be laymen, they shall be
anathematized.

Interpretation.

This present Canon is word for word the same as c. XXVII of the 4th, and read
its interpretation there.

Canon XCIII.

After her husband’s departure and when he has vanished, yet before becoming
convinced of his death, any woman that cohabits with another man is committing
adultery. Likewise the wives of soldiers, who, when their husbands have
disappeared, get married (again), are subject to the same rule precisely as
those who fail to await the return of their husband when he has left home.
Nevertheless, in this case there is room for condoning their conduct because
there is more suspicion of death. The woman, on the other hand, who has
unwittingly married a man who has been temporarily abandoned by his wife, and
has been left afterwards because of his former wife’s return to him, is indeed
guilty of having committed fornication, but unknowingly. Though she shall not be
denied the right to marry, yet it would be better if she should remain as she
is. If the soldier should ever return in time whose wife on account of his
protracted absence has taken another husband, he shall have the right, if he so
should choose, to take back again his own wife, a pardon being granted to her on
account of lack of knowledge and to the man who has cohabited with her in the
course of a second marriage.

Interpretation.

This Canon is composed of three Canons of St. Basil the Great (for its
beginning is word for word his c. XXXI) saying that if the husband of a woman
departs and does not come back for a long time, and she, before hearing and
being informed that her husband has died, takes another man she is an
adulteress; (the part following this is word for word the same as c. XXXVI of
St. Basil. Likewise if the wives of soldiers get married a second time, on
account of not having heard that their husbands are coming back, are
adulteresses. However, these women who marry a second time have some claim to
pardon (more, that is to say, than have wives of non-soldiers who have married a
second time) inasmuch as their husbands, being soldiers and engaged in wars are
more to be suspected of having died than of being still alive). That woman, on
the other hand, who (this part of the Canon is word for word c. XLVI of Basil)
takes to husband that man who was left a long time before by his wife, without
knowing that he was married, and who afterwards lets him go when his former wife
returns to him, has indeed committed fornication, but quite unwittingly, and she
is not to be condemned as adulteress. Hence she shall not be prevented from
taking a lawful husband if she wish to do so. It would be better, however, and
safer for her not to get married. The rest of the Canon is a decree framed by
the Council itself. But if the soldier should return from war after years whose
wife has got married a second time because of his having been many years in
foreign lands, he, I say, if he so wish, can take back his wife, pardoning both
her and her second husband because they married without knowing that he was
still alive.

Canon XCIV.

As for those who take Greek oaths, the Canon makes them liable to penances;
and we decree their excommunication.

Interpretation.

Greek customs ought to be hated by Christians. For this reason the present
Canon excommunicates instance, “by Jupiter” or “by Zeus,” or who swear by the
elements, by saying, for instance, “by the Sun,” or “by the Heaven above us,”
and the like; just as c. LXXXI of Basil subjects them to penances. St. Basil,
however, canonizes eleven years those men who without any great necessity due to
tortures deny the faith or eat things that have been sacrificed to idols and
take the oaths of the Greeks, just as they themselves, that is to say, believe
in them. The present Canon of the Council excommunicated, as Balsamon says, not
only these men, but also Christians who have not denied the faith but have taken
oaths in accordance with the custom of the Greeks. Wherefore no such oath, nor
indeed any other oath taken in the face of an unrecognized or disreputable
religion, is to be kept, according to ch. 19 of Title XIII of
Photius.

Canon XCV.

As for heretics who are joining Orthodoxy and the portion of the saved, we
accept them in accordance with the subjoined sequence and custom. Arians and
Macedonians and Novations, who called themselves Cathari and Aristeri, and the
Tessarakaidekatitae, or, at any rate, those called Tetradites and Apolinarists,
we accept, when they give us certificates (called libelli); and when they
anathematize every heresy that does not believe as the holy catholic and
Apostolic Church of God believes, and are sealed, i. e., are anointed first with
holy myron on the forehead and the eyes, and the nose and mouth, and the ears,
while we are anointing them and sealing them we say, “A seal of a gift of Holy
Spirit.” As concerning Paulianists who have afterwards taken refuge in the
Catholic Church, a definition has been promulgated that they have to be
rebaptized without fail. As for Eunomians, however, who baptize with a single
immersion, and Montanists who are hereabouts called Phrygians and Sabellians,
who hold the tenet Hyiopatoria (or modalistic monarchianism) and do other
embarrassing things; and all other heresies — for there are many hereabouts,
especially those hailing from the country of the Galatians — as for all of them
who wish to join Orthodoxy, we accept them as Greeks. Accordingly, on the first
day, we make them Christians; on the second day, catechumens; after this, on the
third day we exorcise them by breathing three times into their faces and into
their ears. And thus we catechize them, and make them stay for a long time in
church and listen to the Scriptures, and then we baptize them. As for
Manicheans, and Valentinians, and Marcionists, and those from similar heresies,
they have to give us certificates (called libelli) and anathematize their
heresy, the Nestorians, and Nestorius, and Eutyches and Dioscorus, and Severus,
and the other exarchs of such heresies, and those who entertain their beliefs,
and all the aforementioned heresies, and thus they are allowed to partake of
holy Communion.

Interpretation.

As for the present Canon, from the beginning of it to the point where it says
“and then we baptize them,” it is word for word the same as c. VII of the 2nd.
The interval beginning “As concerning Paulianists” to “without fail” is taken
from c. XIX of the 1st verbatim. For this reason we do not even trouble
to interpret these parts here again; see their interpretation there. The rest of
the Canon is a decree of the present Council’s own, which says that the
Manicheans, and Valentinians, and Marcionists, when they join Orthodoxy, must be
baptized, as also the Eunomians and Montanists, according to the interpretation
given by Balsamon. Nestorians, and Eutychians, Dioscorites, and Severians, have
to anathematize in writing their own heresy and their heresiarchs, and all those
persons who believe in their heresies, among whom are numbered also the
Monotheletes, as well as the Novatians and the Macedonians, and after doing so
they are allowed to partake of the divine Mysteries.

Canon XCVI.

Those who have put on Christ through baptism have solemnly promised to
emulate and imitate the manner of life He led in the flesh. As touching,
therefore, those who arrange and dress the hair of their head by contriving to
plait or wave it in a fashion which has disastrous effects on beholders, and
hence offers a lure to unbolstered souls, we undertake to treat them in a
fatherly fashion with a suitable penance, while training them like children and
teaching them how to live in a sober and sane manner, with the object of
enabling them to lay aside the deception and vanity resulting from materiality
in order that they may bend their minds towards a life which is perpetually
unruffled and blissful, and to enjoy chaste association in fear, and to approach
God as near as possible through their purity of life, and to adorn the inner
rather than the outer man with virtues and benignant and blameless manners, so
that they may not have any trace left in them of the rudeness of the adversary.
If, however, anyone should conduct himself in a manner contrary to the present
Canon, let him be excommunicated.

Interpretation.

“As many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ”
(Gal. 3:27), says the great Apostle Paul. Hence the present Canon adds that
those who have put on Christ must also adopt his mode of life and practice every
chastity and purity, and not adorn their body in a manner that is both
superfluous and artificial. On this account it excommunicates those Christians
who braid the hair of their head, and comb it and wave it and flaunt it as a
lure to those souls who are of weak faith and easily led astray, as much of men
as of women, and while training such persons with the penalty of excommunication
it teaches them to abandon every deception and vanity and embellishment of
matter, and of this perishable body, and, on the other hand, to lift their mind
up to that blissful and imperishable life, approaching God as near as possible
with their purity of life, and preferring to adorn themselves, that is to say,
the inner man, or soul, with virtues and benignant manners, without paying
attention to the outer man, or body, with such deceptive and vain adornments or
embellishments, in such a way as to avoid bearing any longer any sign of the
wickedness of the Devil, whom they have renounced through holy
baptism.

Canon XCVII.

As regards those who are living with a wife or are otherwise indiscreetly
commonizing sacred places and treating them contemptuously, and thus domiciling
therein, we command them to be evicted even from the catechumenates in the
religious houses. In case anyone should fail to observe this rule, if he be a
clergyman, let him be deposed from office; but if he be a layman, let him be
excommunicated.

Interpretation.

The Canon does not employ the expression “sacred places” here to designate
the divine temples, but the habitations connected with the divine temple, such
as the so-called catechumenates, in which some persons dwelt with their wives
and which they treated like other, ordinary places, indiscreetly, that is to
say, without drawing any distinction between a holy and a profane place. On this
account it commands that such persons be ousted from them. Anyone failing to
observe this rule, if he be a clergyman, let him be deposed from office; or if
he be a layman, let him be excommunicated.

Canon XCVIII.

Whoever takes by way of matrimonial union any woman betrothed to another man,
while the man to whom she has been betrothed is still alive, shall be deemed
liable to the penalty provided for the crime of adultery.

Interpretation.

An engagement which is entered into in accordance with laws, at the legal
age, that is to say, of a man and of a woman, and which has been duly signaled
by a gift of wedding rings or other earnests, and solemnized in church, and
accompanied by the usual exchange of kisses on the part of the engaged — such an
engagement, I say, has the same force and effect as a complete wedding (and see
the Footnote to Ap. c. XVII). For this reason the present Canon decrees that
anyone taking to wife a woman who has been engaged in such a manner as this to
another man, who, as her betrothed, is still alive, let him be penalized as an
adulterer, precisely, that is to say, like a man who takes to wife a woman
married to another. That is why a man betrothed to a woman is also called the
conjugate of his own fiancee, in the same way, for instance, that just Joseph
the Bridegroom is called in the Gospels the husband of the holy Virgin, and
conversely the holy Virgin is called the wife of Joseph, because even in the old
Law a betrothal had the force of a marriage.

Canon XCIX.

And this too occurs in the country of the Armenians, we have learned, to wit,
that some persons, roasting pieces of meat within the space of the sacrificial
altars of sacred temples, offer parts assigned to priests, distributing them in
a Jewish fashion. Hence, with the object of maintaining the unblemished sanctity
of the Church, we decree that none of her priests shall be permitted to accept
consecrated pieces of meat from those offering them, but shall be content with
only what the offerer is pleased to offer, any such offer being made outside of
the church. If anyone fail to do so, let him be excommunicated.

Interpretation.

Zonaras, and Balsamon, and Aristenus, and the Anonymous Expositor all in
common explain that the Armenians were wont to roast meat inside of the
sacrificial altars. But to me it seems that these expositors, failing to
punctuate, but, on the contrary, running together the words “roasting pieces of
meat” with the words “within the space of the sacrificial altars,” fell into an
error. Such was not the meaning intended. For the phrase “within the space of
the sacrificial altars” is not to be combined with the phrase “roasting pieces
of meat,” but, on the contrary, being divided off with a comma, it should be
combined with the phrase “offer parts assigned.” For it is highly improbable and
too absurd to believe, that meat should be actually roasted within the space of
the holy Bema wherein is situated the sacrificial altar of the church, thus
turning it into a kitchen. So what the present Canon says is that this custom
which was practiced in Armenia, where some persons would roast meat at home and
afterwards offer parts of it in the holy Bema to the priests (just as the Jews
offer the breast or a leg or some other part of the animals being sacrificed to
their priests) — that custom, I say, is not to be followed hereafter, but
neither are priests to have permission to take those parts of an animal which
they want, but, on the contrary, must be content with whatever parts a Christian
offers them; the offer of such meat, moreover, must take place outside of the
church, and not inside of the sanctuary, or sacred Bema, of the church. Hence
the sense of the words as set forth by us above becomes evidently manifest from
the context. For had it been an actual fact that they were roasting that meat in
the Bema, the Canon ought necessarily to have prohibited this, as something
highly improper, as it prohibited the offering of the meat. Let anyone guilty of
violating this rule be excommunicated. But Balsamon states (in his
interpretation of Ap. c. III) that he saw an abbot-priest deposed and ousted
from the abbacy because he brought meat and cheese into the holy Bema. See also
the Interpretation of Ap. c. III.

Canon C.

“Let thine eyes look aright, and keep thy heart with all diligence”
(Prov. 4:25 and 23), wisdom bids us. For the sensations of the body can easily
foist their influence upon the soul. We therefore command that henceforth in no
way whatever shall any pictures be drawn, painted, or otherwise wrought, whether
in frames or otherwise hung up, that appeal to the eye fascinatingly, and
corrupt the mind, and excite inflammatory urgings to the enjoyment of shameful
pleasures. If anyone should attempt to do this, let him be excommunicated.

Interpretation

(No interpretation of this Canon is in the Greek edition.)

Canon CI.

The divine Apostle loudly proclaims the man created in the image of God to be
a body of Christ and a temple. Standing, therefore, far above all sensible
creation, and having attained to a heavenly dignity by virtue of the soterial
Passion, by eating and drinking Christ as a source of life, he perpetually
readjusts both his eternal soul and his body and by partaking of the divine
grace he is continually sanctified. So that if anyone should wish to partake of
the intemerate body during the time of a synaxis, and to become one therewith by
virtue of transessencc, let him form his hands into the shape of a cross, and,
thus approaching, let him receive the communion of grace. For we nowise welcome
those men who make certain receptacles out of gold, or any other material, to
serve instead of their hand for the reception of the divine gift, demanding to
take of the intemerate communion in such containers; because they prefer
soulless (i.e., inanimate) matter and an inferior article to the image of God.
In case, therefore, any person should be caught in the act of imparting of the
intemerate communion to those offering such receptacles, let him be
excommunicated, both he himself and the one offering them.

(1 Cor. 12:27; 2Cor.6:16.)

Interpretation.

In that time there prevailed a custom of laymen communing, just like priests,
by taking the holy bread in their hands, in the manner in which they nowadays
receive the antidoron. But since some men, on the pretense of reverence, and of
paying greater honor to the divine gifts, used to make gold vessels, or vessels
of some other precious material, and were wont to partake of the intemerate body
of the Lord by receiving it in such vessels; therefore, and on this account, the
present Canon will not admit this procedure, even though it be employed for the
sake of reverence. Because, in view of the fact that a man is one who has been
made in the image of God, and who eats the body and drinks the blood of Christ,
and thereby becomes sanctified, and since he is in fact a body and temple of
Christ, according to the Apostle, he transcends all sensible things and
inanimate creatures, and consequently his hands are far more precious than any
vessel. Hence anyone that wishes to partake of the Lord’s body, let him form his
two hands into the shape of a cross, and let him receive it therein. As for any
layman that may receive the body of the Lord in a vessel, and any priest who may
impart it in any such thing, let both of them be excommunicated, because they
prefer an inanimate (i.e., soulless) vessel to the human being molded in the
image of God.

Canon CII.

he tends to health or on the contrary provokes the malady to attack him by
his own actions; at the same time bearing in mind that he must provide against
any reversion, and considering whether the patient is struggling against the
physician, and whether the ulcer of the soul is being aggravated by the
application of the remedy; and accordingly to mete out mercy in due proportion
to the meritsThose who have received from God authority to bind and to loose
must take into consideration the quality of the sin, and the willingness and
readiness of the sinner to return, and thus offer a treatment suited to the sin
in question, lest by employing an immoderate adjustment in one direction or the
other, they fail in compassing the salvation of the one ailing. For, the
diseases called sin are not simple affairs, but, on the contrary, various and
complex, and they produce many offshoots of the injury, as a result whereof the
evil becomes widely diffused, and it progresses until it is checked by the power
of the one treating it. So that a person who is professing the science of
treating ailments as a spiritual physician ought first to examine the
disposition of the sinner, and ascertain whether of the case. For all that
matters to God and to the person undertaking pastoral leadership consists in the
recovery of the straying sheep, and in healing the one wounded by the serpent.
Accordingly, he ought not to drive the patient to the verge of despair, nor give
him rein to dissoluteness and contempt of life, but, on the contrary, in at
least one way at any rate, either by resorting to extremer and stringent
remedies, or to gentler and milder ones, to curb the disease, and to put up a
fight to heal the ulcer for the one tasting the fruits of repentance, and wisely
helping him on the way to the splendid rehabilitation to which the man is being
invited. We must therefore be versed in both, i.e., both the requirements of
accuracy and the requirements of custom. In the case of those who are
obstinately opposed to extremities, we must follow the formula handed down to
us, just as sacred Basil teaches us outright.

Interpretation.

After this Council had decreed concerning many different penances, lastly in
the present Canon it leaves everything to the judgment of the bishops and
spirituals (i.e., confessors), the authority to bind and to loose, saying that
they ought to conjecture, or surmise, both the quality of the sinfulness,
whether it be pardonable or deadly, and the disposition of the sinner with
respect to repentance, and thus to offer the right treatment for his illness;
lest by giving persons who are magnanimous and willing to repent lenient
penances, and persons who are more unconcerned and pusillanimous on the contrary
extreme penances, they fail to correct either the former or the latter, but
rather wind up by losing both. Because sin is so complex and various, and grows
so fast, that it resists, that is, overcomes, the power and art of the spiritual
physician (or, it may be, so complex and various is sin, and so fast does it
grow, before it can be checked and overcome by the art of the spiritual
physician). So, for this reason, the physician of souls must first and foremost
conjecture the disposition and inclination of the sinner, and discern whether he
loves the health of his soul with fervid repentance, or, on the contrary,
whether he actually is coaxing sin to attack him, and how he behaves in regard
to sin, whether he is not opposed to the salutary remedies which he is giving
him (as is done by the demented who are opposed to the salutary remedies of
physicians of bodies), and whether he is not actually aggravating, or
increasing, the lesion of sin with such measures. The confessor, I say, must
first of all make conjectures respecting all these things, and thus with due
proportion mete out mercy, mitigating, or lightening, the penances in dealing
with the man who is unconcerned and pusillanimous, but intensifying, or making
them heavier, in the case of a man who is magnanimous; and doing both for
mercy’s sake, in order, on the one hand, to cleanse the magnanimous man from
sin, and, on the other hand, to avoid making the pusillanimous man’s case worse.
And, generally speaking, the whole aim both to God and to the confessor is
simply this, to bring about the return of the straying sheep, to cure the one
who has been wounded or hurt by the figurative serpent commonly called the
Devil, and neither to drive him to despair by heavy penalties, nor again to let
him take the bit in his teeth, like a horse, by light penalties, and hence
encourage him to contemptuousness and unconcern, but in every possible way,
whether with austere or with mild remedies, to endeavor to restore the sinner to
health and free him from the wounds of sin, so that he may taste the fruits of
repentance, and with wisdom managing to help him to ascend to the splendor of
the Holy Trinity above (which is the kingdom of heaven, according to St. Gregory
the Theologian). So, then, the confessor must have knowledge of both
requirements (just as is said verbatim in c. III of Basil), to wit,
accuracy and custom. In case sinners do not care to observe this accuracy, on
account of which they are compromisingly allowed a reduction of years and of
penances for their sin, let him at least command them to observe the custom, the
entire number of years, that is to say, and the penances prescribed by the
Canons.